Use of rubella seroepidemiological data for assessment of previous vaccination policy and for decision making in response to epidemics in Israel

The Israel National Sera Bank: Methods, Representativeness, and Challenges

The Israel National Sera Bank (INSB) was established in 1997 in the Israel Center for Disease Control. The purpose of the INSB was to provide policymakers with data on the immunity status of the Israeli population against vaccine-preventable diseases, and on the extent and characteristics of exposure to emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. The aim of this paper is to describe the methods, representativeness, and challenges in maintaining the INSB. The INSB comprises residual sera collected in six laboratories. By the end of 2019, 138,898 samples had been deposited in the INSB. These include samples from four community laboratories: 30.7% from the National Blood Service, 22.2% from Haifa and the Western Galilee, 21.7% from Soroka, and 0.7% from Jerusalem; and from two medical center laboratories: 18.6% from Schneider and 6.1% from Mayanei Hayeshua. The demographic characteristics of the sample at the end of 2019 closely resembled those of the general population. The main challenges addressed in maintaining the INSB relate to its representativeness, the possibility of repeated donors, costs, stability of antibody levels after long-term storage, ethical aspects, and the data available for each sample. The INSB is a unique, powerful, and necessary tool for assessing population immunity levels, based on serum samples collected over a long period of time.

Systematic Review of Measles and Rubella Serology Studies

Serological tests provide information about individual immunity from historical infection or immunization. Cross-sectional serological studies provide data about the age- and sex-specific immunity levels for individuals in the studied population, and these data can provide a point of comparison for the results of transmission models. In the context of developing an integrated model for measles and rubella transmission, we reviewed the existing measles and rubella literature to identify the results of national serological studies that provided cross-sectional estimates of population immunity at the time of data collection. We systematically searched PubMed, the Science Citation Index, and references we identified from relevant articles published in English. We extracted serological data for comparison to transmission model outputs. For rubella, serological studies of women of child-bearing age provide information about the potential risks of infants born with congenital rubella syndrome. Serological studies also document the loss of maternal antibodies, which occurs at different rates for the different viruses and according to the nature of the induced immunity (i.e., infection or vaccine). The serological evidence remains limited for some areas, with studies from developed countries representing a disproportionate part of the evidence. The collection and review of serological evidence can help program managers identify immunity gaps in the population, which may help them better understand the characteristics of individuals within their populations who may participate in transmission and manage risks.

Comparison of rubella seroepidemiology in 17 countries: progress towards international disease control targets

OBJECTIVE

To standardize serological surveillance to compare rubella susceptibility in Australia and 16 European countries, and measure progress towards international disease-control targets.

METHODS

Between 1996 and 2004, representative serum banks were established in 17 countries by collecting residual sera or community sampling. Serum banks were tested in each country and assay results were standardized. With a questionnaire, we collected information on current and past rubella vaccination programmes in each country. The percentage of seronegative (< 4 IU/ml) children (2-14 years of age) was used to evaluate rubella susceptibility, and countries were classified by seronegativity as group I (< 5%), group II (5-10%) or group III (> 10%). The proportion of women of childbearing age without rubella protection (< or = 10 IU/ml) was calculated and compared with WHO targets of < 5%.

FINDINGS

Only Romania had no rubella immunization programme at the time of the survey; the remaining countries had a two-dose childhood schedule using the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The percentage of susceptible children defined five countries as group I, seven as group II and four as group III. Women of childbearing age without rubella protection were < 5% in only five countries.

CONCLUSION

Despite the low reported incidence in many countries, strengthening the coverage of the routine two-dose of MMR vaccine among children is needed, especially in group III countries. Catch-up campaigns in older age groups and selective targeting of older females are needed in many countries to ensure necessary levels of protective immunity among women of childbearing age.